EVMS

Earned Value Management: How Much Is Enough?

, , , , , ,

How Much EVMS Is Enough

I took the scenic route to selecting the theme of this blog. First, it was suggested that I write a blog on the benefits and costs of the earned value process as it applies to program management. Next it was suggested that I describe the harm of not using any of the elements of the earned value process.

In the case of the benefits and costs of the earned value management process, it would be difficult to improve upon Dr. Christensen’s 1998 paper on this heading or to attempt to improve other papers and studies done by Wayne Abba, Gary Humphreys, Gary Christle, Coopers & Lybrand and others. So I will not make citations to these past studies. Rather I will leave them undisturbed, as the monuments they have become.

This blog will summarize my observations of how companies have chosen “how much EVM is enough” for them and share my observations of the results of these decisions. Each company has selected an EVM implementation strategy and each company’s strategy falls along a bounded continuum.

I will describe this continuum of company EVM strategies with a left hand and a right hand goal post, and the space between as a cross bar. The “left hand goal post” represents companies that elect to be very poor at EVM or to not use EVM at all. The “right hand goal post” represents companies that have committed to being “best-in-class” practitioners of the EVM process and are the polar opposite of the companies at the left hand goal post. There are few companies at either the left or right hand goal posts. The “cross bar” represents the vast majority of companies that have selected an EVM strategy somewhere between the left and right goal posts.

Two Goal Posts And A Cross Bar; Recalcitrant, Merely Compliant, Efficiently Expert

There are as many strategies to earned value management as there are companies using EVM to manage their programs and projects.

Left Goal Post; The Recalcitrant

I have firsthand experience with a company, that at the time I initially joined them and had decided to ignore earned value management even though it was a requirement in several of its contracts. After many painful years of attempting to maintain this recalcitrant EVM strategy, this company decided that a better strategy would be to become “efficiently expert” at EVM.

Cross Bar; Merely Compliant at EVM

It has been my experience that most companies desire to “become EVM compliant,” which generally means being compliant to the 32 guidelines and not failing those guidelines so as to be de-certified. This is the vast middle ground between the two goal posts. I will now share five observations regarding companies in the “cross bar” majority.

Observation #1: Compliance As A Goal; Golf and EVM

Compliance should be a “given,” or a “pre-condition,” not a “goal.” Remaining merely compliant implies a status quo or static posture.

I will use the game of golf as an analogy. Golf is a game of honor and compliance to well established rules. All PGA professional tour golfers “comply” with the rules that govern golf. Although all PGA tour pro golfers comply with these rules, their performance on tour differs dramatically.

Fifty-three percent of all PGA golf pros, past and present, have no tour wins. That means only 47% of all PGA tour golf pros have won at least a single PGA tour. There are seven players in the history of the PGA that have fifty or more tour wins. If the bar is lowered to forty or more wins, only three players are added to the list. If the bar is lowered yet again to thirty or more tour wins, only eight more players are added to the list. Only 18 golfers have won 30 or more PGA tournaments.

Professional golfers do not confuse compliance with performance, nor do these professionals assume that “being compliant” will improve their performance.

Observation #2: “The Tyranny of The Status Quo”

With apologies to Milton Friedman and his book of the same name, companies that attempt to maintain mere guideline compliance will do no better than the status quo, and more often than not, regress toward non-compliance. Maintaining status quo is a myth – you either improve or regress.

All professionals, companies included, must compete in their markets and selected fields. To succeed in this competition requires constant improvement in areas critical to success. A company, organization, or individual without the means or the desire to improve will eventually fail and perhaps perish.

Observation #3: Blaming The Scoreboard

As a program manager, I considered EVM as my scoreboard. I reacted to the EVM data – the scoreboard – and made decisions based on that data (GL #26).

I recall the 2014 Super Bowl’s final score: Patriots 28, Seahawks 24. Did the scoreboard cause the Seahawks to lose the game or did a poor decision by their coach cause the loss? Imagine a coach that cannot see the scoreboard. That coach does not know the score or how much time remains. That coach cannot react to the realities of the game.

Observation #4: EVM Causes Poor Program Performance

I have witnessed several company leaders assert that the use of EVM on a poorly performing program is the cause of that program’s poor cost and schedule performance. A correlation between two variables, or a sequence of two variables (use of EVM and poor performance), does not imply that one caused the other. This is the logical fallacy known as “X happened, then Y happened, therefore X caused Y.” Night follows day, but day does not cause night. Use of EVM does not cause poor program performance. Not reacting to EVM data and promptly taking corrective action with your program’s cost and schedule performance often leads to poor outcomes.

Observation #5: It Takes More Energy To Be Poor At EVM Than To Be Expert

Returning to the earlier golf analogy, professional golfers make very difficult shots appear easy. I played in one pro/am tournament years ago. The pro I was teamed with took me to the range hours before our tee time. He asked me how many balls I hit before each round. I told him sometimes none and sometimes 50. He hit 1,000 balls before our round. When we finished our round, he was ready for another 18 holes. I was not. Both of us “complied” with the rules of golf. His score was significantly lower than mine. His game was effortless and produced a below par score. My game was labored and produced a poor result.

And so it is with EVM or any other process. The better you are at a skill, the easier it becomes. Experts consume far fewer calories at their craft than ambivalent amateurs.

Right Goal Post; Efficiently Expert At EVM

The polar opposite of a recalcitrant strategy to EVM is a strategy to become “efficiently expert.” As I mentioned earlier, I joined a company that attempted to sustain a recalcitrant EVM strategy. Their recalcitrant EVM strategy led to de-certification, large dollar withholdings, and significant damage to their corporate reputation.

After the most ardent EVM recalcitrants in this company “sought employment elsewhere,” a new strategy was adopted. This company embraced a strategy to become “best-in-class” as expert practitioners of EVM. This company’s goal was EVM perfection. EVM perfection is an impossible ambition, but wiser than “mere compliance.” And as with the PGA tour golf pro, EVM became nearly effortless.

Which EVM strategy will your company choose?

 

Robert “Too Tall” Kenney
H&A Associate

Earned Value Management: How Much Is Enough? Read Post »

Clarification on the New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System EVMS Thresholds | DOD & DPAP

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System (EVMS) ThresholdsOn September 28, 2015, the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Directorate (<abbr=”Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Directorate”>DPAP) released a memorandum entitled “Class Deviation – Earned Value Management System Threshold”. In this memo the DoD changed the threshold for <abbr=”Earned Value Management System”>EVMS application to $100 million for compliance with EIA-748 for cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts. That same memorandum stated that no EVMS surveillance activities will be routinely conducted by the Defense Contract Management Agency (<abbr=”Defense Contract Management Agency”>DCMA) on contracts or subcontracts between $20 million to $100 million. As attachments to this memorandum, there was a reissuance of the Notice of Earned Value Management System <abbr=”Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations”>DFARs clause (252.234-7001) and the Earned Value Management Systems DFARs clause (252.234-7002), with both reflecting the new $100 million threshold.In response to this guidance, a series of questions from both contractors and other government personnel were submitted to Shane Olsen of the DCMA EVM Implementation Division (<abbr=”EVM Implementation Division”>EVMID). Below are the salient points from this communication:

  • There will be no EVMS surveillance of DFARs contracts under $100 million. Contracts without the DFARs clause, such as those under other agencies using the FAR EVM clause, will continue surveillance under their current thresholds.
  • The $100 million threshold is determined on the larger of the contract’s Ceiling Price or Target Price; as reported on the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) or Contract Performance Report (CPR) Format 1.
  • The threshold is based on the Contract Value including fee (at Price) as noted above. If there is an approved Over Target Baseline (OTB) which increases the Total Allocated Budget (TAB), this cannot push a contract over the threshold.
  • The new thresholds not only apply to subcontracts, but also Inter-organizational work orders with an EVMS flow-down.
  • Regardless of the circumstances, the DCMA will not conduct surveillance on contracts less than $100 million. However, if there are Earned Value issues that the buying command or other parties believe need to be reviewed, then the DCMA may conduct a Review for Cause (RFC) of the system against potentially affected guidelines.
  • The DCMA Operations EVM Implementation Division (EVMID) will not be conducting Compliance Reviews in FY-2016 unless there is an “emergent need”.
  • If a site is selected for a Compliance Review, only contracts greater than $100 million would be in the initial scope of the Implementation Review (IR). However, if an issue is discovered that requires the team to “open the aperture”, other contracts are not precluded.

The DCMA is still working on a response to the following questions:

  • How do I handle a contract that is currently below $100 million but has options that, in aggregate, would exceed $100 million?
  • How is the contract value determined on:
    • Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contracts
    • Non-ID/IQ with Multiple CLIN-Level or Task Order reports?

This blog will be updated and reposted as answers to these questions are given.

Clarification on the New Department of Defense Earned Value Management System EVMS Thresholds | DOD & DPAP Read Post »

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded

, , , , , , , ,

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded | DFARSThe DoD EVM Implementation Guide (EVMIG, Oct 2006) was rescinded on September 15, 2015 by the Office of Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA). The EVMIG had provided guidance for understanding Earned Value Management System (EVMS) concepts; detailed procedures for implementing the EIA-748 EVMS Standard, Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS), on government contracts; tailoring guidance for EVMS application and reporting; and post award procedures. Most of the details contained in the EVMIG are also available in other, more recent, publications and the EVMIG is replaced with these other references. EVM System information can be found in the DoD EVM System Interpretation Guide (EVMSIG) which provides overarching DoD interpretation of the 32 EIA-748 EVMS guidelines. Additional information can be found in multiple Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) compliance instruction documents.

PARCA identified the following references to replace the contents and guidance found in the EVMIG:

EVM Concepts and Guidelines
EVM Concepts TBD EVM Analysis Guide
Defense Acquisition University (DAU) EVM Community of Practice
PARCA EVM Website
EVM System (EVMS) Concepts EVMSIG
DCMA Surveillance Guide

 

Procedures For Government Use of EVM
Organizational Roles and Responsibilities TBD EVM Application Guide
PARCA EVM Website
Defense Acquisition Guide (DAG)
WBS Development and Use MIL-STD-881C
TBD EVM Application Guide
EVM/EVMS Policy and Application TBD EVM Application Guide
PARCA EVM Website
Cost and Schedule Reporting Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Data Item Description (DID) and IPMR Guide
TBD EVM Application Guide
EVMS System Compliance EVMSIG
DCMA Surveillance Guide
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Program Manager’s Guide to the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)
TBD EVM Application Guide
Reprogramming Formal Reprogramming Over Target Baseline (OTB)/Over Target Schedule (OTS) Guide
EVMSIG
Training Defense Acquisition University Website
PARCA EVM Website

Earned Value Management Implementation Guide (EVMIG) Rescinded Read Post »

Guidelines for Schedule Displays

, , ,

EVMS & SDG: Schedules Display Guidelines for Organized Diplays and Earned Value Management

An Organized Approach to Improving Schedule Displays

Paul F. Bolinger 7/1/2014

 

This paper was originally published in the College of Performance Management’s Measurable News, third quarter 2014.

This paper establishes a set of guidelines to improve the display of schedules.

Research into human perception has brought an understanding of the ways that information display can be improved to speed up recognition and provide clarity. The guidelines presented here focus only on schedule information displays and are based on research by authors Colin Ware and Stephen Few [reference]. An example schedule display is developed as part of the paper to help the reader understand the application of the guidelines.The goal of displaying information is to aid the thinking of the reader. Research by Ware and Few informs us that there is some “pre-attentiveperception [reference] processed by the eye-brain combination. This is subconscious perception. The faster this front-end perception is accomplished, the faster overall perception and then cognition can be accomplished. In other words, the faster the reader can start to think about the meaning of the schedule. If the display is set up so that the reader just “gets it” without having to go piece by piece through the details, then the reader can move quickly on to their thought processes about the schedule. This paper is part of the effort to develop and disseminate the practice of building better top level executive type summary schedules for major projects.

Too often, large amounts of time and effort are put into project planning and scheduling only to be unavailable for, or hidden from, general usage by the obscurity of the systems used and the lack of neat clean ways to provide quality graphical schedule information at the project summary level. There are already tools available to build high impact top level schedules linked to the detailed networks below; now we have guidelines to help us use those tools to make our schedule displays even better.

The Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG)

In this paper, we will look at some defined guidelines and examples of what should be best practices in displaying schedules. Each schedule display guideline [SDG] has been derived from underlying research into human perception and processing of visual information. Colin Ware & Stephen Few have written very important works about information display, and Ware has published a set of guidelines on display of information in general. This paper adopts the guideline approach Ware used effectively, and specifically applies those guidelines to the display of schedules.

Each schedule display guideline will be stated, explained, and supported with an example. The assumption is that these schedules rest upon a disciplined lower level set of high quality schedules that meet the generally accepted scheduling guidelines (GASP). We are focused on the display of schedule information, not on the scheduling techniques and measures.

Guidelines and Supporting Arguments

[SDG 1.0] Identify the intended viewers of the schedule and prepare the display accordingly. Each audience can have a different level of interest in a project or program schedule. The right display approach for one audience can easily be totally wrong for another. For top level schedules, the display should present summary material relevant to the needs of the audience.

Some examples of target audiences are:

  1. Customers – who are interested in understanding the project from their point of view; when do they get what they ordered and what is their involvement.
  2. Company executives – who are interested in understanding the project and having a tool (the schedule) to use to inform others about the project.
  3. Project Team – who are interested in having a useable and understandable road map they can refer to as they proceed along the path to the goal.

The example provided later in this paper will be for customer executives intended to help them to follow progress and to explain the project to others. These executives want a one page overview schedule linked up from the detailed electronic schedules that they can confidently use to brief others on their project.

[SDG 2.0] Identify the environment; what is it you are going to describe in your schedule. Questions you must resolve before you make key decisions about the display are; will you be dealing with multiple projects, a single project, a single project with multiple goals, a single project with multiple high-level players like team mates or subcontractors, multiple phases of a project, a short period or a long period?

The example provided later in this paper is a single project for a U.S. Department of Defense customer. It will span multiple years and include design, fabrication, assembly, testing and support efforts to document the system. This is not a real project but represents the type of challenges found in real projects.

[SDG 3.0] Understand the project you are going to display. What is unique about the project? What message needs to be given to help the viewer understand the project? Remember that important details are obscured in the network centric scheduling software; the summary level schedule is the place where crucial components can be highlighted and emphasized.

The example project provided later in this paper is one in which a shipboard fire control system, consisting of hardware and software components, will be upgraded to meet new threats. Running parallel to this effort, the target drone fleet will be upgraded to be able to simulate the new threats. The shipboard modifications and the upgraded drones will be performed by two major sets of suppliers. The two parts of the project must come together for live fire testing. What should be emphasized is the parallel development of the shipboard system with the modifications to the target drones under the DoD project life cycle, with its various reviews and customer participation coming together at the goal.

[SDG 4.0] Design the type of schedule based on the audience, environment, and specific uniqueness of the project to provide the message you have. A comprehensive high level project roadmap might be just the thing for a schedule to be used with the customer or company executives, while a birds-on-a-wire type schedule might be better for combining multiple projects that must be shown together. A phased type schedule would work best on a multi-phased project. For the project team, the schedule should focus on their particular challenges. Each of those choices yields a different looking display.

The example will be a comprehensive high level project roadmap that includes the two major efforts, along with the supportability tasks needed to make an entire project. Because it is a single project, the use of birds-on-a-wire, phased, or other multi-project orientations have been discarded in favor of a road map approach. The road map is the highest level summary, but is intended to cover the entire project, start to finish, on a single page no larger than 11×17. To meet this challenge the display software will be used to “hand pack” the plan onto the single page before it is linked to the underlying network schedules.

[SDG 5.0] Select the background and frame to best fit the environment for the schedule. How the display is framed and subdivided significantly impact on how it is viewed. Do you want a plain blank background or do you want to subdivide the background in any way? Should your schedule have horizontal swim lanes to focus on sequential related work? Do vertical lines help you make your point? What calendar display should you use? Should you have a legend; do you need one?

Background color selection must be done in coordination with the color scheme for the symbols so that the proper amount of contrast can be established to help let the symbols stand out on the background. The correct background color will enhance the readability and impact of the display.

Because this example is a U.S. Navy project, colors in the blue and gold realm will be used in the background. In this case, swim lanes would make it more difficult to portray the two major efforts of the project coming together since swim lanes tend to keep elements separate. Because the project is a multi-year, vertical drop lines for the years will be used to help the viewer see the plan unfold across them. The background is a light color that recedes into the frame of the calendar. The calendar shows three levels: year, quarter, and month for clarity.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #1

All graphic examples in this paper were produced using Milestones Professional 2012 Version.

[SDG 6.0] Group the display to best tell the story of the project, emphasizing the project flow from start to the various goals. Grouping is one of the key decisions in building the display. This is best done when the groups are natural or logical. The groups can be vertical groups related to timing like phases, horizontal groups of related types of work, groups by performer or supplier, or done to emphasize some other important grouping. If a project has a single goal, the waterfall top-to-bottom and left-to-right approach might be best. If the project has more than one goal, you should evaluate if the work can be grouped to show those various thrust or interest areas? If the project has some major subprojects or major players, would those factors lead you to a specific grouping set of criteria?

In this example two major groups will be built to show the shipboard and the drone efforts as groups coming together for the goal. A third group will be put at the bottom to contain miscellaneous work.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #2

[SDG 7.0] Select and use as small a set of standard symbols as you need to cover the environment. Symbols should be standardized across the schedules developed by an organization or company. Once a usable set of symbols is employed and used rigorously, the level of ease of perception, recognition, and interpretation will improve and the speed of comprehension will grow.

The idea of standardizing is a way to help us move more quickly from perception to cognition. After all, we are using the schedule information so that we can think about the schedule, the project, the issues, the outcomes, and so on. That is cognition or analysis. The schedule is a tool to help us with our cognition so we don’t want the schedule itself, the way it is presented, to get in the way. On the contrary, we want to have the best way to quickly get the message to the thinking part of our brains.

[SDG 7.1] Landmark milestones should be unique in shape and color as well as position. Landmark symbols are important symbols that would show on every page or would show on the prime contractor and subcontractor schedules to anchor the various versions in the eyes and minds of the readers.

Because this is a U.S. Navy project the shape of a ship has been used as the landmark symbol for top level milestone. The other symbols show milestones as triangles so that they come to a point at a specific date. Other bars are used to show durations and durations with special attributes. These special task bars will help the reader spot uniqueness in the plan. Deliveries are shown as a unique diamond shape to help the eye find them on the plan.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #3

[SDG 8.0] Use a few basic colors to differentiate and highlight your schedule display; red, green, yellow and blue are good choices for basic presentations. Colors are easily perceived if selected carefully. The research indicates the colors best suited to display. Colors can be a negative factor if they have emotional content.

In this example the same symbols will be kept but colors will be modified for emphasis. The shipboard tasks will be one color scheme while the drone tasks will be another. Deliveries will be a consistent green diamond since green provides the idea of “go”. Ancillary tasks will default to the shipboard scheme rather than having a third color scheme which would make the plan less readable. Where the two efforts come together, the final joint effort will be highlighted by color.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #4

[SDG 9.0] Prioritize the display to enhance the story. Priority can be established by size, color, sequence or a combination of techniques. Priority in schedule display leads the viewer through the schedule so it is an important concept and an important attribute of the display.

Place important landmark milestones at the top. Prioritize your groups in logical order according to the specific project goals. In this example, the shipboard systems will be positioned just below the landmark milestones and will waterfall down to the right to the goal. This implies that the shipboard system work “leads off” and is of high importance. The drone systems will flow upward from the bottom left to the goal, The “Vee” shape will emphasize the supportive nature of this effort and how the two major thrusts come together at the goal.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #5

[SDG 10.0] Add comments to the schedule at important decision points, important transition points, and to enhance comprehension where that is needed. Movement from one phase to another is an important transition that you could explain. The sequential transition from design, to build, to testing marks major changes in the type of work on a project; these points would be logical places for comments. Decisions that dramatically affect the project should be mapped onto the schedules and highlighted with comments. For example, the decision whether or not to authorize additional product builds, or other follow-on efforts, are important points in a plan.

[SDG 11.0] Examine the display and analyze it according to its adherence to the guidelines as well as its impact. Does it get the job done? Modify as needed to complete the display. Try it out on people to see if they can spot weaknesses or suggest improvements.

Here is the final example of the plan. Review and analyze this display in terms of its adherence to the guidelines and how far it goes in providing the top level executive summary schedule needed for the project.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #6

The analysis of the final overall example shows the elements added that correspond with the schedule display guidelines.

Milestones Professional 2012 Version | Schedules Display Guidelines (SDG) example #6 details

Paul F. Bolinger is an Engagement Director with Humphreys & Associates consulting in project management with a specific emphasis on project scheduling. His experience with project scheduling tools like Primavera and Microsoft Project has proven there is a need for high level well-constructed schedule displays. He has consulted on many projects including electronics, aerospace, nuclear power, shipbuilding, and construction.

Guidelines for Schedule Displays Read Post »

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves”

, , , , , , , , , ,
Management Reserve & Earned Value ManagementPerhaps you have witnessed the collision of earned value management’s views on “management reserve” with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the finance department’s views on “balance sheet reserves.” Most companies tend to organize EVM, the function, reporting to either the programs’ organization or to the finance organization. Either will work but either can fail if the two organizations do not understand the interest of the other.

In this article we will outline three areas. The first will be EVM and Management Reserve (MR). The second will be finance and balance sheet “contingencies, loss provisions, or reserves.” The third will compare the two views and identify where they are similar and where they differ.

We will use two terms for both EVM and Financial Management; “in play” and “on the sideline.” “In play” for EVM means that it is in your Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) and Budget at Completion (BAC). “On the sideline” for EVM means “not in scope” therefore in MR. “In play” for financial management means recorded on the balance sheet (e.g.: current liability; an accrued liability). “On the sideline” for financial management means not recorded on the balance sheet, because it is more likely than not that a liability has been incurred.   If material, however, it will likely be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements, even if it is not recorded on the balance sheet.

 

Earned Value Management and Management Reserve

A program manager and his or her team must deal with – mitigate – risk or be consumed by those risks as they become issues. There are two types of risks, known and unknown. The known risks are entered into a risk register, and their likelihood and consequence are determined. Mitigation for those known risks is done at the activity level in a program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide — PASEG page 141, ¶ 10.3.1). Mitigation of known risks is part of the PMB (in the BAC) and is therefore “in play.”

The second type of risk – unknown or unknowable risks – are covered by management reserve if within the Scope of Work (SOW) of the existing contract. If contractor and customer conclude that the realized risk is outside the existing contract, then an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) would likely be created by the contractor; and a contract modification would be issued by the authorized customer contracting officer if they agreed.   The program manager should ask this question of his team: what work is “at risk” and what work is not “at risk?” Does labor or material present more risk? Management reserve “is an amount of the overall contract budget held for management control purposes and for unplanned events” (Integrated Program Management Report–IPMR DI-MGMT-81861 page 9, ¶ 3.2.4.6). Management reserve is “on the sidelines.” MR has no scope. MR is not earmarked. MR stands in waiting.

 

Earned Value Management Reserve (MR) Compared To Financial Management “Contingency”

Because the audience reading this blog is most likely from the EVM community, I’ll offer a Financial Management example of a company that faces many risks and must manage those risks or be consumed by them. Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (stock symbol: MO) are in the tobacco, e-Vapor and wine business. Altria’s history clearly shows that the company measures and successfully mitigates the risks they face. Altria faces a blizzard of litigation each year and must protect its shareholders from that risk. So how does Altria manage known risks (mostly from litigation) and how does Altria handle unknown risks?

Altria is a publicly traded company and its annual report (10K) is available on-line to the public. This data is from their 2014 annual report.

I am an MBA, not a CPA, so I’ll stick to Altria’s 2014 balance sheet. For those not familiar with financial statements, a balance sheet has on its left hand side all of a company’s assets – what the company owns and uses in its business (current assets = cash, accounts receivable, inventory; long term assets = property, plant and equipment). The right hand side of a company’s balance sheet shows current and non-current liabilities and shareholders’ equity. The top right hand side of the balance sheet includes current and non-current liabilities (accounts payable, customer advances, current and long-term debt, and accrued liabilities like income taxes, accrued payroll and employee benefits, accrued pension benefits and accrued litigation settlement costs) and the bottom of the right hand side of the balance sheet includes shareholders’ equity consisting of common and preferred stock, paid in capital and retained earnings.

Altria’s 2014 annual report shows under current liabilities; accrued liabilities; settlement charges (for pending litigation Contingency note # 18) a value of $3.5 billion dollars. The 2013 amount was $3.391 billion dollars.

So Altria has “in play” $3.5B for litigation for 2014. In financial terms, Altria has recorded $3.5 billion in expense related to the litigation, probably over several years as it became more likely than not that a liability had been incurred and was reasonably estimable. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in their baseline, or earmarked, or in scope for litigation (court cases).

What happens if Altria ultimately has more than $3.5B in litigation settlement costs? What does Altria have waiting on the “sidelines” to cover the unknown risks? Essentially Altria has on its balance sheet waiting “on the sidelines” $3.321 billion in cash and the ability to borrow additional funds or perhaps to sell additional shares of stock to fund the settlement costs. In EVM terms Altria has $3.5B in its baseline (on its balance sheet) to manage the risks associated with litigation. Altria’s market capitalization at the market close on May 17, 2015 was $52.82 billion and its 2014 net revenues were $24.522 billion. It is reasonable to understand that Altria has more than enough MR.

 

Differences Between EVM MR and Financial Management Balance Sheet Reserves

In EVM, MR is only released to cover unplanned or unknown events that are in scope to the contract but out-of-scope to any control account. A cost under-run is never reversed to MR, and a cost over-run is never erased with the release of MR into scope.

In industry in general, and Altria in particular, if the “in play” current liability for settlement charges of $3.5B are not needed (an under-run), then Altria will reverse a portion of the existing accrued liability into income, thereby improving profitability. If Altria’s balance sheet reserve of $3.5B is insufficient, then Altria’s future profits will be reduced as an additional provision will be expensed to increase the existing reserve (an over-run).

[Humphreys & Associates wishes to thank Robert “Too Tall” Kenney for authoring this article.]

Management Reserve; Comparing Earned Value Management (EVM) and Financial Management Views of “Reserves” Read Post »

Variance Analysis, Corrective Action Plans, Root Cause Analysis

, , , , , , , , ,

Variance Analysis “provides EVMS contract management with early insight into the extent of problems and allows corrective actions to be implemented in time to affect the future course of the program.” [NDIA ANSI EIA 748 Intent Guide] Department of Defense Data Item Descriptions: DI-MGMT-81861, Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) paragraphs 3.6.10xx; DI-MGMT-81466A, Contract Performance Report, paragraph 2.6.3; and DI-MGMT-81650, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) — paragraph 2.5 — all require analysis for significant variances including cause, impact and corrective action plans.  By comparing the performance against the plan, it is possible to make mid-course corrections which assist completion of the project on time and within the approved budget. The Variance Analysis Report (VAR) is a “living, working document to communicate cause, impact and corrective action”. [See: Chapter 35 Variance Analysis and Corrective Action, Project Management Using Earned Value, Humphreys & Associates, page 707.] Well-written variance analyses should answer the basic questions of why, what and how.

Cause is also known as root cause, nature of the problem, problem statement, issue, or problem definition. Root cause is the fundamental reason for the problem. Root cause is required in order to take preventative corrective action. The explanation of the variance is broken down into each of its components: discuss schedule variances separately from cost variances; discuss labor separately from non-labor; discuss which portion of the variance was caused by efficiency (hours) and which portion was because of dollars (rates) or if the variance was driven by material discuss how much was because of price and how much was because of usage. For more information refer to Humphreys & Associates blog Variance Analysis-Getting Specific.

Once the root cause of the problem has been identified and described, the impact(s) on the project should be addressed. Identify impacts to customers, technical capability, cost, schedule (including when the schedule variance will become zero), other control accounts, program milestones, subcontractors, and the Estimate at Completion, including rationale.

A corrective action (CA) plan should be developed that describes the specific actions being taken, or to be taken, which includes the individual or organization responsible for the action(s). The corrective actions should be directly derived from root cause analysis and related to each identified root cause.   Results from previous corrective action plans should be included.  Occasionally, a successful plan will include interim modifications or fixes in the short term, with long term changes identified as well. When no corrective action for an overrun is possible, an explanation and EAC rationale should be included.  A corrective action log should be used that tracks the actions taken and the status of the corrective plan for each variance analysis cycle.  As was stated in the Humphreys & Associates article:  Corrective Action Response: Planning and Closure – Part 2 of 2  “It is critical that verification methods, objective measures, metrics, artifacts, and evidential products are identified that will verify that the corrective actions are effective.”  Corrective action plans based on clearly a defined root cause facilitates time management action and avoids the occurrence of repetitive problems.

Variance Analysis, Corrective Action Plans, Root Cause Analysis Read Post »

Scroll to Top